Optimism’s Test

To feel optimistic about domestic issues is one thing. Sen. Barack Obama has rewarded the hopes of many who thought that his election in America today was perilously impossible. To feel optimistic about political issues in far-off continents is quite another. As a supporter of Morgan Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe’s power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe—which is currently in a state of collapse—I now face the reality of this distinction. Yet the situation in Zimbabwe is so dire that it absolutely requires optimism, as irrational is it might currently seem.

Under the terms of the agreement, Mugabe and Tsvangirai would share power, with Mugabe as president chairing the National Security Council and Tsvangirai as prime minister chairing the Council of Ministers. The two would split control over the government’s key ministries. Most significantly, Mugabe and his Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF) would retain control of the army and national defense, while Tsvangirai’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) would be in charge of daily operations and home affairs. Tsvangirai considers the latter cabinet essential given its control of the police, who were tools for Mugabe’s suppression of Tsvangirai supporters in the weeks before the presidential runoff. They were so violent that Tsvangirai was forced to withdraw even though he had won the initial popular vote. Mugabe has rejected this balance of power and made cabinet appointments unilaterally, causing a new power dispute.

South Africa’s leaders have offered little prospect of hope for Tsvangirai and a fair power-sharing agreement. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa was never an impartial mediator. Mbeki and Mugabe have been called close allies, and a source at the recent South African Development Community (SADC) summit negotiations said Mbeki will not stand up to Mugabe. Mbeki has supported Mugabe’s control over ministry appointments. According to the Zimbabwe Independent, Tsvangirai listed to the SADC examples showing that Mbeki could not act “fairly and impartially.”

Not only has Mbeki failed as an objective mediator, but he also provides a poor example of leadership himself. The Harvard School of Public Health recently found that Mbeki’s decision to reject HIV drugs as unsafe nine years ago cost 330,000 lives. And, in 2001, he made wild accusations against three leaders of his own political party—who were later defended by Nelson Mandela—that they were plotting his ouster. A man with such partiality and dangerously fickle leadership could never be a legitimate mediator.

Even with Mbeki’s removal as South Africa’s president and subsequent loss of clout, the situation has not improved. The SADC as a group has proven to support Mugabe, as it “resolved” the Mugabe-Tsvangirai agreement at its recent summit by suggesting the co-management of home affairs that so clearly favors Zanu-PF. The SADC compromise places all enforcement—army, national defense, and now police, under home affairs—at the access of Mugabe, a brutal dictator. South Africa’s new president, Kgalema Motlanthe, has said he will take a harder line with Mugabe in general policy, but the SADC’s findings thus far reveal a clear pro-Mugabe bias.

When a country falls as rapidly as Zimbabwe has, it is absolutely necessary to hope that the country can rise just as improbably. Without hope, there will be no initiatives or efforts for improvement. As Harvard focuses on sustainability, students can hardly comprehend Zimbabwe, where there is so little to sustain. A main hospital in the nation’s capital, Harare Central, closed two weeks ago. In a country with 231 million percent inflation, a nurse cannot even buy a soda with her weekly paycheck, about 12 US cents. At the SADC summit, Tsvangirai warned that one million Zimbabweans face death from starvation this winter. His remarks come with the UN’s announcement Tuesday that four million Zimbabweans are now receiving reduced rations from the World Food Program (WFP) as the UN’s food organization has not received the millions of dollars it needs to combat Zimbabwe’s growing food crisis.

Western nations have claimed they have many millions of dollars marked for Zimbabwe, waiting for Mugabe’s removal from power to be released. This pragmatic acknowledgement that little can be done with Mugabe still a primary player seems justified: Mugabe has managed to maintain his grasp on Zimbabwe for this long. Yet Western nations cannot give in to cynicism. Some of that earmarked money must be sent to the WFP, for example, to help address Zimbabwe’s immediate food crisis, even if they might face resistance from Mugabe, who blocked a similar appeal for emergency funds in 2005. From a general perspective, the global community must find hope where it can with Zimbabwe and act wherever possible.

Perhaps September’s power-sharing agreement was not a major step forward for Zimbabwe, but I stand by my optimism. More people need to find a reason to hope for Zimbabwe and support their optimism with concrete efforts wherever they can. The worst that can happen is temporary disappointment, followed by renewed efforts. When the stakes are this high, the global community must accept that small risk.

Alexander R. Konrad ’11, a Crimson editorial writer, is a history concentrator in Quincy House.